Saturday, March 22, 2008
éirígí: armed struggle is a tactic, not a principle…
Mick Hall has an interesting quote from a Northern Irish member of éirígí, a relatively recent phenomenon in Republican politics, which seems to have surfaced in Dublin much before organising in Belfast:
“The party defends the right of any people who are subjected to imperialist occupation to use whatever means they deem necessary to remove that occupation. However, we do believe that the elevation of military struggle to a principle as opposed to a revolutionary tactic has retarded the development of the republican project. The policy of militarism encourages elitism and stifles the initiative of our communities. Pursuing a military strategy at all costs also divorces the struggle from ever-changing contexts and hence, our ability to capitalize on them.”
Mick Fealty @ 12:25 AM
I suspect that any member of this nascent organisation who styled themselves as being Northern Irish would soon find themselves looking for another organisation to join - the Alliance party perhaps.
I also suspect that any new ‘revolutionary party’ that subscribes to the axiom ‘by any means necessary’ would lose their deposit in any election. SF have shown that if you try to ride two horses at once sooner or later you will have to let one of them go. Armed struggle impresses none but the bloody-minded these days - eírígí to fall at the first hurdle.
Posted by on Mar 22, 2008 @ 12:47 AMPicador,
Strange how people read the same thing in different ways. I as a Republican read that as a call not to arms, you do the opposite.
Posted by on Mar 22, 2008 @ 12:56 AMAye, that’s exactly what we need. A Republican party that stands for everything and nothing at the same time.
Posted by on Mar 22, 2008 @ 01:06 AMmick
can i congratulate you on two things, first, removing ed moloney’s book on paisley from your “strongly recommended” list and leaving steve bruce’s account instead - that decision shows such subtle and informed judgement on your part. steve bruce (boy, what a writer!) got so close to paisley that at times i really did think he was almost viewing the man from a cecum-like vantage point whereas moloney is just obsessed with political morality, as if bloodstained hands on the levers of power have anything to do with politics in our wee norniron! secondly, thanks for ensuring that your coverage of moloney’s book on your blog was kept to the minimal, as it should be. well done mick - keep up the good work! we know we can always rely on you;
yours
GBOPosted by on Mar 22, 2008 @ 01:50 AMMark,
I read it as being highly ambiguous. Does eírígí have a miltary wing yet? When can we expect them to start playing toy soldiers? In what cicumstances will they use the ‘military struggle’ tactic? Who will they fight against? To what ends? Haven’t we already had enough of this shite?
Posted by on Mar 22, 2008 @ 02:07 AMAre there people who still believe in that Marxist claptrap? Which is another form of Imperialism by the way.
Whoever heard of a Bloodless Revolution eh?. eirigi are a bunch of part time juvenile radicals,(I hear its mostly young people) most kids in belfast are more interested in a new pair of nike trainers than class politics.Posted by on Mar 22, 2008 @ 11:30 AMIn referring to the headline .....
I would think that if you are going to be voluntarily involved in war and the grim realities it invovles, it would have to be in agreement with your principles. (Rightly or wrongly).
It might also be in accordance with tactics, but the seriousness of the whole thing means that principle comes before tactics IMHO.
With regards to talking about the future of Ireland, best to talk politics and not war.
Posted by on Mar 22, 2008 @ 11:51 AMJimmy,
Comment five on this indymedia entry would make your ‘juvenile radicals’ comment seem far off the mark.
“Brendan Mac Cionnaith, garvaghy road spokesperson, former sinn fein -delivered a speech at their function in Dublin there
David Highland - independant MLA former sinn fein is there too
Dominic mc glinchey of the mc glinchey family of south derry
A couple of high profile belfast republican ex prisoners, Alec Mc Crory and Rab jackson
Geraldine Dougan former MLA, sinn feinAnd Bernard fox and Bernadette mc Aliskey have both spoken at events of theirs recently.
So they have former and current elected reps,high profile ex prisoners and hunger strikers and they dont seem short on young people either by the looks of it!
Obviously names are just names but i doubt if anyone in republican circles would refute the calibre of some of these people without it being politically motivated
Say what you want about éirígí but there is potential there for the first time in years of a real republican alternative and people like those mentioned above are noticing it and more importantly putting their name to it.
They dont get into the mud slinging of every other republican group who thinks that they are the ‘true owners’ of republicansm and all these heavy hitters who found it impossible to stop the rightward swing of sinn fein and see no validity in the hundred or so republican splinter groups see something different here.
interesting times ahead!
Posted by on Mar 22, 2008 @ 11:56 AMThe alternative is to say armed struggle is wrong in principle. That is a proposition republicans need to consider.
Consider a hypothetical situation where the British could be removed from Ireland by military force and the six counties handed over to the Dublin government. The north would be in a unite Ireland rather than a united Kingdom. But the problem would not be solved.
We would still have two communities on the island with opposing constitutional aspirations. Can anyone honestly claim that unionism would fade away any more than nationalism did in the north?
So by falsely diagnosing the problem as a military one, armed struggle prevents us from solving it. Any future armed struggle would be a failure just as the recently ended one was a failure.
Te real task is to take a long hard look at that failure and understand the reasons for it. To drop the “undefeated army” nonsense. To consider the double-think in sending people out to die for a united Ireland and then commemorating them at a devolved Stormont Assembly.
And to ask where honest leadership for nationalism is likely to come from.
Posted by on Mar 22, 2008 @ 11:59 AMéirígí looks like a re-run of the Wolf Tone society and the Young Socialist Alliance/Peoples Democracy of the 1960s but in a very different context. Will Dublin stand idly by or will it play the nimby option once again? Is there another Paisley waiting in the wings?
éirígí is still stuck on the horns of the constitutional question. It can be a working class organisation for all that sector of society or it can be a nationalist one; it can’t be both.
Posted by on Mar 22, 2008 @ 12:00 PMHenry,
The quote, incorrectly attributed to a Northern Irish [sic] member of éirígí, is taken from an address to an RSYM event. It comes from a section starting: ‘Chief among the failed experiments have been militarism, reformism and the policy of ‘labour must wait’.
The full text can be found by googling RSYM, éirígí and militarism, for some bizarre reason Slugger is blacklisting the link so I can’t add it.
Those seeing militarism are just seeing what they want to see rather than what was said.
Posted by on Mar 22, 2008 @ 12:12 PMMark, how can you say incorrectly? The éirígí member isn’t named in that article.
Posted by on Mar 22, 2008 @ 12:39 PMSo Mr. McGregor,
Are you a member of this organisation and if so do you renounce killing people in an attempt to get your aims?Posted by on Mar 22, 2008 @ 12:57 PMMark
I had a quick look at the éirígí website. It looks to me like the armed struggle without the arms. Demanding British withdrawal and attacking the Queen’s visit.
If the objective is to mop up disaffected provos and recruit some young people it will work to some extent.
But as a roadmap to a united Ireland it simply doesn’t cut it. We have to address unionism and how the hell does protesting about the Queen do that?
Posted by on Mar 22, 2008 @ 12:59 PM“Haven’t we already had enough of this shite?”
Hear, hear. It would only be a troublesome stance if, economically, the Republic were going down the pan and the people couldn’t fry a sausage. But thankfully that is not so.
Yawn...next item please.
Posted by on Mar 22, 2008 @ 01:02 PM“if, economically, the Republic were going down the pan”
Given that many economists are predicting a potential serious downturn in the global economy, the Republic’s dependence upon foreign investors with regards to its major growth over the recent decade or so, could make the Celtic Tiger particularly susceptible to decisions taken in board-rooms elsewhere. Added to that are the more “attractive” (in terms of lower wage levels)incentives within former Eastern bloc counties.
If there is a major recession on the way, (and fingers, toes and everything else crossed that there won’t be) the Republic might be less immune than it appears on surface.
Posted by on Mar 22, 2008 @ 01:34 PMPhysical force republicanism is deep rooted in the Irish (nationalist) psyche and, of course, we’re all supposed to believe it worked in 1916 - 1922 so therefore it is legitimate.
But is it really? It has failed to achieve anything at every other outing from 1798 onwards and even in 1922 all it delivered was a dominion (ie not the republic) and of rather more lasting significance, partition.
If Home Rule had come in 1920, Ireland would - had people desired it - been independent by 1948 (the Brits could hardly have let India go and keep their ‘oldest colony’). On the other hand the people of Ireland as a whole might have preferred some other form of association with Britain if it delivered unity on a 32 county basis.
The republicanism of 1916 proved pretty much to be a dead end for the people of Ireland - particularly for the Northerners condemned to live in a sectarian state that treated them as second class citizens as a point of policy. But also for the, quite literally, millions who were driven off shore by its economic failure in the IFS/RoI.
God bless Dick Spring and Mary Robinson for nailing down its coffin.
Posted by on Mar 22, 2008 @ 01:43 PMOhhh nice to see the knee jerks are all still well in place here - from picador and his wories of a “revolutionary party” (as far as I know eírígí is not a political party pic, so you’re predictions of electoral failure are irrelevant. For the answers to your other questions just visit their web-site and inform yourself).
To Henry and his disgust at republicans revolting against a visit from the Queen (come on Henry - I mean they are republicans for a reason you know. Unionists may not like that side of it, but their marches aren’t exactly addressing republican sensibilities either.) To Turgon and his knee jerk demands for the renunciation of violence from Mark based on the supposition that perhap he might once have shared a ciggie with a guy who knew a man who was at an eírígí meeting.I don’t see this quote in any way as being a call to arms. Maybe I’m reading it wrong, but it looks to me be basically as saying that armed struggle in the irish context has had a serious negative impact even on republicanism.
Posted by on Mar 22, 2008 @ 01:43 PMIt looks like eirigi are an organisation seriously out of step with 21st century realities.
‘Armed struggle’ of any hue is a complete non-starter. The support for such action (following lest we together an overwhelming vote for peace/the GFA/continuing partition) is miniscule and the supposed justifications risible.
In a post 9/11 world, the Irish, British and US govts are singing off the same hymnsheet regarding terrorism.Marxism is a global beaten docket and the ROI electorate gave a firm thumbs down to SFs leftist ramblings last year.
30 years of provo violence failed to secure a British withdrawal. Erigi’s similar-sounding strategy would have considerably less chance of success in today’s economic and global climate.
Perhaps they could join forces with TUV and leap into oblivion together.
Posted by on Mar 22, 2008 @ 01:48 PMSorry the word ‘together’ in third line should be ‘forget.’
Posted by on Mar 22, 2008 @ 01:53 PMNevin @ 11:00 AM above refers to the “Wolfe Tone Society” (as does Ferriter, page 566).
My recollection is that the Dublin lot mainly operated under the title of the “Wolfe Tone Bureau”. I certainly recall a public meeting in the Mansion House, about 1964-65, using that front. The republican orthodoxy then, of course, was entryism. The “Wolfe Tone Society” I had believed to be a North London small-and-select band of fellow-travellers.
Can anyone help me to get the names straight?
And, no, Jimmy @ 10:30 AM, “Marxist claptrap” (more definition needed there, I feel), is not “another form of Imperialism”, by any way. As for Mark McGregor @ 10:56 AM‘s catalogue of names, it does answer the question: Mais ou sont les neiges d’antan?
As for eirígí, the sad truth is you give them a good word ("imperialism") and a few selected quotations from Connolly, and they call that an ideology. Hmm ... perhaps “Marxist claptrap” is not too far from the mark. It’s certainly ill-digested Marxism.
Posted by on Mar 22, 2008 @ 01:54 PMMalcolm,
There is currently a London organisation describing itself as The Wolfe Tone Society, which is as you say it is.
However, The Wolfe Tone Society referred to here (and there was more than one) was a republican think-tank in the 1960s set up under the auspices of Cathal Goulding, and which contributed to the rethink that went on within the republican movement at that time, and led to the rejection of militaristic nationalism, and an emphasis on addressing social and economic questions, and combatting sectarianism. It was at a Wolfe Tone Society meeting that the decision to launch the civil rights campaign was taken.
Posted by on Mar 22, 2008 @ 02:02 PM“God bless Dick Spring and Mary Robinson for nailing down its coffin.”
Nah mate, try successive democratically elected politicians for such transitions!
Re partition GFA endorsed. Move on as have the people who have actually been the real movers.
Posted by on Mar 22, 2008 @ 02:10 PMcircles
To Henry and his disgust at republicans revolting against a visit from the Queen (come on Henry - I mean they are republicans for a reason you know. Unionists may not like that side of it, but their marches aren’t exactly addressing republican sensibilities either.)
It not disgust at all. I just don’t see anything new in it. Unionists might as well march against Mary McAleese. It’s ignoring the situation we are in.
The Agreement was the best we could come up with. We had Clinton, Blair and Ahern on the job. Each considered the best political mind of his generation at home.
We had Adams and Hume two substantial nationalist leaders on our team. Even Paisley had to accept it in the end. And it still looked enough like Sunningdale to make us wonder what the intervening years had been all about.
Any departure in political life has to start from the Agreement if it wants to be considered serious.
Posted by on Mar 22, 2008 @ 02:15 PMgood to see you blogging here again Henry94, norn iron blogsphere is a broad church ;)
There must be only so much ATW yuz can take, what with “Lets bomb Iran” as the happy Easter story.
On your above points, I think you’re spot on.
For my part I’m trying to explain to the heathen on Balrog, that a united ireland must come though the front door, and not the back door.
I’m none too popular for it. lolPosted by on Mar 22, 2008 @ 02:27 PM
